วันพฤหัสบดีที่ 19 มีนาคม พ.ศ. 2558

Can an App Improve Our Financial Health?





 Ov er the last decade, technology has shifted the way Americans approach everyday issues, like hailing taxis or even something as simple as ordering dinner. Unfortunately, those same solutions have not been applied across the board to crucial issues that have a real impact on people who need the most help. But as millions of Americans struggle with financial insecurity, innovative approaches are leveraging new technology solutions to address this crucial issue.

Many Americans continue to struggle with financial insecurity. Roughly 34 million households lack a checking or savings account.1 Forty-three percent of Americans struggle to pay their bills and half of all Americans lack a savings fund for emergency use.2 One in every five Americans has no idea how long they could make ends meet in the event of a job loss.3

Janis Bowdler, Head of Financial Capability initiatives at JPMorgan Chase & Co. recently spoke with Jennifer Tescher, President and CEO of the Center for Financial Services Innovation (CFSI) about the financial challenges facing many Americans, the importance of developing innovative solutions to help address this major issue, and how the Financial Solutions Lab will work to attract top technology talent to create solutions to improve financial health.

Bill de Blasio Actually Had a Good Year



B ill de Blasio should be having the best year of his political life.
The local economy in this city of 8.5 million is doing well. School test scores are up ever so slightly. The city’s crime statistics are headed in the right direction: murders down four percent from last year, robbery down 14.1 percent, felony assaults down nearly one percentage point.
The freshman Democratic mayor has achieved a host of policy goals—from raising the local minimum wage for certain workers to extending paid sick leave to thousands and implementing his signature universal pre-kindergarten program—that most liberal politicians only dream of.

And the plague of locusts some feared would descend on Wall Street with the election of an avowed progressive, the lover of Sandinistas, hasn’t materialized.
“If you take away the police stuff, I think he had a good year,” said George Arzt, a mainstay in city politics since his time as spokesman for Ed Koch, who also happened to work with de Blasio in the Clinton camp. “I think he’s the first mayor to come in with an agenda to change the city. I think that’s really important.”
And yet there have been missteps and challenges, with the police being the latest and possibly most explosive. The city’s police unions have been in open revolt since two of their own were murdered in a squad car in December, in apparent retaliation for the death of Eric Garner at the hands of police. De Blasio is also gearing up to battle a particularly miffed group of Republicans who now (again) control one of the state’s two legislative chambers.
And though de Blasio clearly has foes, a close look at some of the mayor’s troubles suggests that the person most likely to derail Bill de Blasio may be Bill de Blasio himself.
***
De Blasio blazed into office with an historic landslide victory and an unabashedly liberal agenda.
When he took over a year ago, de Blasio quickly went to work on his top item, an ambitious plan to provide 73,250 free pre-kindergarten slots by the upcoming 2015-2016 school year. The mayor promised phase one would be complete by Year One: 13,845 new seats, spread between public school and community-based organizations, by the start of the school year in September. This was no easy “stroke of the pen achievement,” notes David Birdsell, dean of the School of Public Affairs at City University of New York’s Baruch College.
“There had been some skepticism about the mayor’s ability, and the administration’s ability, to follow through on something more complicated, that involved actually moving people, things, and budgets,” Birdsell said. Universal pre-Kindergarten “was a great test of that capacity, and it was a successful one.”
Not that de Blasio’s path to universal pre-K was flawless. The mayor wanted Albany to authorize a tax increase on the city’s highest income earners to pay the estimated $1.7 billion cost of the first five years of the program. The proposal initially fell flat in Albany, with both fellow Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state legislators—in particular, upstate and suburban Senate Republicans—balking at the idea of raising taxes in an election year. In the end, Cuomo presented a plan to essentially fund the city’s needs through the state budget. It was a victory for de Blasio, but one he appeared unwilling to claim: De Blasio countered that anything other than a tax-funded plan was unacceptable. Some might call it biting the hand that feeds you when you’re starving.
“He played that out to a fault,” said Birdsell.
De Blasio’s refusal to accept victory—maybe not the victory he wanted, but certainly the victory he needed—showed at best a political naivete (hard to imagine for as seasoned a political operative as de Blasio), or, at worst, an overestimation of his political might. At the time, the mayor was fond of talking about his mandate, of the 73 percent of city voters who’d sided with him, of the rising progressive vision—both locally and nationally—of ending inequality through a new age of liberal governance. (Never mind that only 24 percent of eligible city voters showed up.)
Talk to the mayor’s people and they shrug off the dustup between de Blasio and Cuomo. The mayor’s inflexibility, they say, was the kind of hardball needed to get things done in a state capital renowned for its dysfunction.
Beyond universal pre-K, de Blasio shepherded legislation extending paid sick leave to some 500,000 New Yorkers, signed into law a provision creating municipal ID cards for residents, including undocumented immigrants. Through an executive order, he single-handedly increased the minimum wage for employees of companies that receive at least $1 million in city subsidies. After going years without contracts, more than 71 percent of the city’s public sector workforce has signed new labor agreements, which the administration promises will remain budget friendly through mandated healthcare cost savings. There’s the Vision Zero plan to bring pedestrian deaths down that included installation of city-wide speed cameras and the lowering of the speed limit. De Blasio can also take credit for assuaging the anger of many struggling New Yorkers by rebooting stalled reconstruction efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

Even in moments of crisis, de Blasio’s team says planning played a key role. According to Peter Ragone, a top de Blasio aide and one of the most trusted voices in City Hall right now, de Blasio’s approach can be traced to the philosophy of legendary UCLA basketball Coach John Wooden: “Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.” De Blasio repeats these words, Ragone says, “many times a week.”
“You plan as much as you can for the things you want to do, because then the things that happen to you—because things happen to you here—when those occur, you’re better to prepared to deal with them, because all the other aspects of government are being run effectively,” Ragone says during a New Year’s Eve interview.
Leading up to the Ebola scare in the city, de Blasio told his aides to stop thinking as if it might happen and start thinking that it would happen.
“We moved the entire government for two months preparing for it,” Ragone says, referring to the city’s crafting of a plan of action for first responders, HAZMAT units and public hospitals in the event a case was reported.
When it finally came—in the form of a New York physician recently returned from Africa—de Blasio looked like the calm statesman in the crisis, while Cuomo and Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vacillated between various draconian measures, such as forced quarantines, before falling in behind de Blasio’s practical solutions for containing what turned out to be a single case of the disease.



Obama snuffs stoner dreams of legalization


In an interview with VICE News, Obama says he supports decriminalizing pot but stops short of endorsing legalization.
By SARAH WHEATON 3/16/15 6:49 PM EDT
Barack Obama may be the first acknowledged stoner to hold the highest office, but he continues to blunt the hopes of advocates for legalizing pot.
Obama’s interview with VICE news – posted at 4:20 p.m. on Monday – is part of a stepped-up White House strategy to court millennials through non-traditional news outlets. But when VICE founder Shane Smith suggested to the president that legalizing marijuana would be “the biggest part of your legacy,” Obama’s response would harsh any mellow.
Story Continued Below

“First of all, it shouldn’t be young people’s biggest priority,” Obama chided. “You should be thinking about climate change, the economy, jobs, war and peace. Maybe way at the bottom you should be thinking about marijuana.”
As his administration prepares for a concentrated push on sentencing reform, Obama drew a distinction between his support of states’ efforts to decriminalize marijuana and reverse the crackdown on nonviolent drug offenders and actually encouraging drug use. It would be up to Congress, he said, to change pot’s legal status.
“Legalization or decriminalization is not a panacea,” he added, questioning whether it would work for drugs like meth and crack. “There is a legitimate, I think, concern, about the overall effects this has on society.”
Obama spoke more forcefully about another green issue: the environment, essentially accusing the Republican Party of immaturity on climate change.
“It’s not both sides arguing and creating gridlock. You’ve got one side that is denying facts,” Obama said. “That’s a phase that the Republican Party is going through right now. It’ll outgrow that phase.”
Obama’s cooler-than-thou tone toward Republicans continued throughout the interview, echoing a clip released week in which Obama said he was “embarrassed” for the 47 Republican senators who wrote an open letter to Iran about the nuclear negotiations.
Smith, whose questions were interspersed with clips from VICE documentaries, told Obama he was “rational, sane” and asked questions that easily set Obama up to mock his Republican opponents. It was just the latest interview granted by the president to a web-driven outlet that offered not only a Gen-Y audience but also sympathetic hosts and exceptional entertainment value.
In January, he talked to three YouTube stars, including the emerald-lipped comedian GloZell Green. Vox packaged the president’s answers into share-friendly video nuggets, complete with background music and graphics. And Ben Smith’s straight-laced interview for BuzzFeed News was published just days before a BuzzFeed Video-produced promotion for the Affordable Care Act featured the president with a selfie-stick.
Pot also came up in the BuzzFeed interview, but Obama has increasingly been bringing the subject up himself, minus the preaching. When Jimmy Kimmel asked him last week about Sean Penn’s stoner character in the movie “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” the president replied, “”I lived it, man, I didn’t just see it.”
He followed that up Saturday at Washington’s annual Gridiron dinner, where he predicted he’d get more laughs than usual. “I’m not saying I’m any funnier. I’m saying weed is now legal in D.C.,” he quipped.
Obama acknowledged smoking pot in his pre-campaign autobiography “Dreams From My Father,” but it wasn’t until his second term approached that Obama started to let his stoner humor loose. David Maraniss’s detailed descriptions of his exploits with a group of friends dubbed the “Choom Gang” in his biography “The Story,” made it clear that Obama certainly did inhale — often and with gusto. He also made a knowing pitch to “Harold and Kumar” fans during the 2012 campaign, and at the White House Correspondents Association dinner in 2013, he marveled at the changing media landscape.
“I remember when BuzzFeed was just something I did in college around 2 a.m.,” he said.


U.S. to 're-evaluate' peace process


Netanyahu’s disavowal of a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict upends U.S. policy, White House says.
By SARAH WHEATON 3/18/15 2:10 PM EDT
President Barack Obama will call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to congratulate him on Tuesday’s election victory in the coming days, his spokesman said. But he suggested the conversation is likely to go downhill after the “mazel tov.”
In light of Netanyahu’s vow that there would be no Palestinian state during his tenure, the United States will “re-evaluate our approach” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict said Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Wednesday.
Story Continued Below

“It has been the longstanding policy of the United States that a two-state solution is the best way to address this conflict,” said Earnest during a press gaggle aboard Air Force One. The president still holds that view, he added.
En route to an event in Cleveland, Earnest also went out of his way to condemn “divisive rhetoric” from Netanyahu’s Likud Party. While Earnest did not cite the prime minister by name, a post on Netanyahu’s Facebook wall on Election Day warned, according to a translation, “The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are going en masse to the polls. Left-wing NGOs are bringing them on buses.”



http://www.politico.com

Hey, Governors: You Didn't Build That


R epublican governors in the heartland are taking an economic victory lap for what might be called the Midwestern miracle: Ohio is gathering speed, Indiana’s on a roll, Michigan is achieving the unbelievable and Wisconsin—well, according to Gov. Scott Walker, “the Wisconsin Comeback is working.”
What—you thought this was President Obama’s recovery?
It’s an article of history, almost of faith, that a rising economy benefits the president, his party and its White House ticket. And there’s plenty to brag about: The national jobs report for February was greeted with adjectives that ran the gamut from “strong” to “wow” to “barnburner.” “The United States of America’s coming back,” Obama said Wednesday in Cleveland, and that should be good news for the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.
But there’s a wild card—make that four wild cards—as the 2016 cycle gets under way: four Republican governors from potentially competitive Midwestern states who are considering presidential bids and, short of that, would make solid vice presidential picks. They are presiding over economies far better than the ones they inherited, and any one of their states could be the tipping point for a GOP presidential nominee next year.
These governors are claiming the resurgences as their own in narratives that don’t mention Obama or the federal government, except as impediments. Yet economists say they are able to call the state of their states “strong” in large part because of the policies Obama muscled through to strengthen the safety net and prevent collapse on both Wall Street and Main Street. To paraphrase Texas populist Jim Hightower’s famous quip about George H.W. Bush at the 1988 Democratic convention: These governors were born on third base and they’re claiming credit for hitting triples.
The irony is rich given that Obama confronted a solid wall of GOP opposition to most of the steps he took, not least from Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, then in Congress. And it is not lost on Obama. He tweaked Republicans on Wednesday for predicting that his policies would “crush jobs and explode deficits and destroy the economy forever,” when the opposite has happened. On top of that, three of the governors potentially eyeing his job—Walker, John Kasich in Ohio and Rick Snyder in Michigan—rode in on the conservative 2010 wave fueled by anger at Obama, the economy and the Affordable Care Act. Obama’s efforts may have helped produce both a Republican ticket and the record for it to run on.
Natural cycles and the steep drop in oil prices have a lot to do with the improving health of the economy, of course. And the governors are doing their best to stoke trade and bring businesses to their states. Wisconsin and Michigan both ranked in the top five states for hiring climates last year on Gallup’s job creation index.
“This administration’s policies are sapping our national vitality and threatening our prosperity,” Pence said at the Conservative Political Action Conference. But that ignores the impact of the stimulus policies—the “big government”—that Obama put in place in his first two years. The relatively slow U.S. recovery has been on fire compared with what’s going on in the Eurozone, where government belt-tightening has been the norm and unemployment remains above 11 percent. U.S. indicators are increasingly positive, meanwhile, and optimism about the economic outlook is growing. “We have emerged from what was a once-in-a-generation crisis better positioned for the future than any of our competitors,” Obama said in Cleveland on what amounted to his own victory lap.
***
Walker, who is doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire polls of the GOP field, is the sitting governor who for now appears most viable and likely to run. His economic talking points include a 5.0 percent unemployment rate (lower than the 5.5 percent national rate), 18,000 new Wisconsin jobs created last November (the most since 1990), and more total jobs than before the recession (16,700 as of a Jan. 22 tweet from Walker). Walker attributes the growth to “tough but prudent reforms” and getting government “out of the way.”
But the state added only about 139,000 private-sector jobs in Walker’s first term, far short of the 250,000 he pledged to create. In addition, while Walker likes to contrast the current jobless rate with the state’s high of 9.2 percent, that peak was in January 2010, a year before he took office; the rate was 7.7 percent when he was inaugurated in January 2011. Moreover, the downward trend began as a result of the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—the massive 2009 federal stimulus package that poured money into green energy, schools, infrastructure, health technology and services, state and local governments and tax cuts for businesses and individuals.
Walker faced a $3.6 billion deficit when he took office, due largely to his predecessor’s use of “one-time stimulus funds to pay for ongoing expenses,” spokeswoman Laurel Patrick told me, adding that this makes it hard to argue that the stimulus played a role in Wisconsin’s recovery. But Marc Levine, founding director of the Center for Economic Development at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, says Walker was “surfing on the impact of the stimulus” in his early months. Wisconsin’s share of the money resulted in a 50 percent increase in federal dollars coming into the state and helped push Wisconsin into the top 20 states for job growth in 2010. “We came out of the recession much more rapidly than other states,” Levine said. “My view is the stimulus played a very important role.”
Richard Stock, director of the Business Research Group at the University of Dayton, offers a similar analysis of the Ohio economy. More than 10 percent of the labor force—586,000 people—was unemployed in 2010, he recalls. “It is difficult to describe how awful it was,” he says. “There’s no question that the stimulus definitely was extremely important in helping the state recover,” particularly the money that flowed to infrastructure projects and state and local governments.
The Ohio unemployment rate was 5.1 percent in December and January. Stock says that is partly because the labor force has shrunk by more than 100,000, and at least some of the shrinkage is due to older workers forced into early retirement by layoffs, shutdowns and difficulties finding new jobs. Furthermore, he says, as in Wisconsin and across the nation, the new jobs in Ohio are not comparable to the high-wage manufacturing jobs that were lost. Levine cites similar asterisks in discussing the Wisconsin unemployment rate and Walker’s job creation record. The growth of jobs and the Gross Domestic Product “has been inferior compared to national rates” and to trends in most neighboring states, he said.
Kasich and especially Snyder, facing the bankruptcy of Detroit, had the steepest challenges—though they took office after the worst had passed. Ohio was at peak joblessness of 10.6 percent for seven long months, from July 2009 to February 2010. By the time Kasich was inaugurated nearly a year later, the rate had inched down to 9.1 percent.
Michigan’s unemployment rate topped out at 14.2 percent in August 2009; it was 11 percent when Snyder took office in January 2011 and 6.3 percent in January.
Pence took office in January 2013 when the Indiana jobless rate was 7.9 percent; its high was 10.8 percent in June 2009.



Don’t Confirm Loretta Lynch


 A n unanswerable question hangs over the nomination of Loretta Lynch for attorney general: Is Republican opposition to her more racist or sexist?
As an African-American woman, Lynch represents a gloriously double-barreled opportunity to accuse Republicans of sub-rosa hatreds.
The political benefit of what feminists call intersectionality — membership in two or more historically oppressed groups — is not having to choose which accusation of bias to make.
One day, it can be racism; the next it can be sexism. Or, different people can make different charges of an -ism on the same day. The possibilities to mix and match are endless.
Consider how Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin went to the Senate floor on Wednesday to effectively accuse Republicans of racism in the nomination fight, even though Hillary Clinton had tweeted on Monday that it is sexism and the head of Lynch’s sorority has said it is both. Synergy!
For his part, Durbin went straight to a Rosa Parks metaphor — because getting humiliated in segregation-era Montgomery, Alabama, is just like being a high-powered lawyer whose confirmation vote has been delayed in the Senate. “Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general,” he said, “is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar.”
The Senate calendar is a bus? If the NAACP ever gives an award for Best Strained Metaphor in the Cause of Calling Someone a Racist, Durbin should be a top nominee.
Clinton tweeted that the delayed vote is an offense “against women.” As if there aren’t liberal women and conservative women, or women who support Obama administration orthodoxy and those who oppose it, there’s just a bloc of undifferentiated women who care only about the gender of nominees for high office.
All of this is transparently in bad faith. Durbin may be many things, but he is not stupid enough to believe that Republicans oppose Lynch because she’s a black woman.
Did Durbin vote against the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state because she’s a black woman? On his own stilted terms, he wanted to relegate Rice to drinking from the segregated water fountain of failed secretary of state nominations, and used the snarling police dog of his “nay” vote to try to do it. It’s hard to believe this could still happen in 2005 America, but it almost did.
The sleight of hand of Lynch’s proponents is to pretend that her nomination is uncontroversial. Durbin says there is no “substantive reason to stop this nomination.” In a segment contrasting the swift confirmation of new Secretary of Defense Ash Carter with the treatment of Lynch, featuring side-by-side photos of the pair (Carter is a white male — get it?), MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said the opposition to her is “inexplicable” on the merits.
This is demonstrably false. As all the Republicans opposing her nomination make plain, the issue is her belief that President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty is lawful.
This isn’t a mere matter of policy or personal preference. It implicates her view of the constitutional order that she will be sworn to uphold. Whether she thinks the executive branch can in effect write laws on its own is a threshold question. Her answer in the affirmative should be disqualifying, no matter how impressive her career has otherwise been, or how historic her confirmation would be.
On the merits, when should Republicans bring her up for a vote — now delayed because Democrats are filibustering a sex-trafficking bill? Never. When should they confirm her? Never.
The Senate shouldn’t confirm any attorney general nominee, from whatever party, of whatever race, ethnicity or gender identification, who believes the president can rewrite the nation’s laws at will.
It doesn’t matter if the nominee graduated at the top of his or her class at Harvard Law School, or barely scraped by at the University of La Verne College of Law.
If the self-styled world’s greatest deliberative body can’t enforce this basic standard, and protect its most elementary constitutional prerogative, who will? From the dawn of true representative government in Anglo-America, the legislature has used fights over executive appointments to try to protect the essentials of self-government.
Of course, if Lynch is blocked, Attorney General Eric Holder will stay in place. But there’s no helping that. The principle that would be upheld is the Senate not giving its imprimatur to an attorney general who thinks its lawmaking role is optional.
All of this is probably academic, because Republicans will eventually hold a vote on Lynch, and they almost certainly don’t have the stomach to defeat her, in part because they fear the dreaded accusation of racism-sexism — or is it sexism-racism?
The congressional fight against Obama’s executive amnesty will fizzle out, and congressional Republicans can move on to something else, sure to bring its own charges of an implicit hatred, perhaps more than one.


I should have closed Gitmo, Obama says


Obama says he didn’t expect the bipartisan consensus around closing the island prison to dissipate.
By SARAH WHEATON 3/18/15 6:31 PM EDT Updated 3/18/15 6:57 PM EDT
If President Barack Obama could go back to his first day in office, he told a crowd in Cleveland, he would close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
On his second full day in office, Obama did sign an executive order that was cast as a directive to close Guantanamo within a year. But it actually created a task force charged with creating a plan to close the detention facility. By the time the group released its plan on Jan. 22, 2010, the bipartisan consensus around closing Gitmo had dissipated and the administration had other priorities for spending its political capital.
Story Continued Below
Instead, in response to a seventh-grader’s question about what advice he’d give his inexperienced self, Obama said he should have taken a more immediate approach, presumably by simply ordering the remaining 242 detainees be moved elsewhere. That stopped being an option after Congress passed restrictions on transferring Gitmo prisoners to the United States.
“I think I would’ve closed Guantanamo on the first day,” Obama said. “I didn’t because at that time we had a bipartisan agreement that it should be closed.”